Another excellent breakdown, Thanks Jack. I recently was able to convince a friend to listen to a lecture by Dr. Calbrese on the incredible history of LNT. Truly breathtaking misconduct that has yet to break into the mainstream. I think I first saw Dr. Calbrese mentioned by yourself, so thank you for that as well.
Here’s the link to Dr Edward Calabrese’s excellent video series: https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/index.html. He documents an unbelievable amount of scientific misconduct pushing LNT. A lot of the fraud was committed by Nobel laureates. Dr Calabrese believes serval key papers supporting LNT should be retracted.
Whether LNT was pushed for high falutin reasons (stopping bomb testing) or academic greed is at the end to the day irrelevant. The only thing that counts is: is it correct? In its denial of our ability to repair radiation damage, it is horribly incorrect.
About a decade ago Jerry Cuttler wrote a paper about dogs. The bottom line is that when dogs are exposed to low level radiation throughout their lives they live significantly longer than a control group of similar dogs that are not exposed to radiation. ie Low level radiation is health beneficial.
I'm trying to summarize the arguments pro and con on LNT for our Fear of Radiation article. I included a figure from Bob Hargraves' book, Electrifying our World, showing USA counties with higher radon levels have lower lung cancer rates. Two radon "experts" are pushing back, but their strong opinions are not backed by data. When the discussion is finished, I will summarize it our our Debate Guide page.
That's a really dumb way to go after LNT. It's easy to come up with all sorts of explanations for those two charts. But if you look at populations that have received really large doses, both acutely and evenly over long periods, there is no way that LNT can replicate both the harm we see in the former case and the lack of detectable harm in the latter. It's because LNT denies our ability to repair DNA damage. Comparing one set of mild dose rates with another gets you no where.
Jack, I agree with you completely that LNT is bunk, but we need to engage the public in this discussion. Journalists and other opinion leaders need to hear the facts and both sides of any remaining issues. If the best we can find is an unsourced statement from self-proclaimed radon "expert", we will publish it under the heading "Read it on the Internet". Then it is up to people like yourself, with verifiable facts, to debunk the nonsense.
On the issue of LNT and radon, it seems like the facts are compelling. Yet we have Mr. Koch arguing that the apparent hormesis is due to a negative correlation of radon levels with smoking prevalence. He has even shown maps of the USA where there is an apparent negative correlation. Counties with high radon levels just happen to be those with low smoking.
I have not read Cohen's paper, but I trust the legend on the scatterplot, which clearly states that the data is only for counties where the percentage of people who have ever smoked is 58-60%. That eliminates smoking as a factor. You or someone else who knows the research should make this point. I will then summarize each side of the debate for our Debate Guide page.
The number of people who are willing to reconsider their opposition to nuclear power is growing. It hasn't yet reached the mainstream media, but we are close.
Yes, dose rate is very important, but what really counts is the dose within the repair period which is roughly half a day. If a 0.4 mSv mammogram is truly dangerous, then we have all sorts of much bigger problems.
Gray is a measure of energy deposition in human flesh (actually any material, but this is the one we care about the most). mSv is a measure of the biological effect of the energy deposition. For gamma and X-rays (what you are talking here), they are equivalent units. Use either one you prefer, the conversion is easy. (100 rad equals a gray and 100 Rems equals a Sievert)
To use the mSv, you must take a measurement. What measurements of a biological effect have been conducted? What biological effect? A lethal effect? A carcinogenic effect? Can one die from the destruction of breast cells in the same way as one dies from the destruction of bone marrow cells? What is being sought to determine is the carcinogenic effect. The input unit is the mGy, and the goal is to establish the dose-response curve. Using the mSv reflects a misunderstanding of a dose-response curve.
Sadly this is just one of many recent examples of this type of ideological p hacking garbage in academic publishing. Roger Pielke Jr also has a few other examples on “controversial” topics recently and there are many other examples that confirm this is a trend. Unfortunately this garbage laundering calls the entire academic publication system into question and that is a shame.
Another excellent breakdown, Thanks Jack. I recently was able to convince a friend to listen to a lecture by Dr. Calbrese on the incredible history of LNT. Truly breathtaking misconduct that has yet to break into the mainstream. I think I first saw Dr. Calbrese mentioned by yourself, so thank you for that as well.
Here’s the link to Dr Edward Calabrese’s excellent video series: https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/index.html. He documents an unbelievable amount of scientific misconduct pushing LNT. A lot of the fraud was committed by Nobel laureates. Dr Calabrese believes serval key papers supporting LNT should be retracted.
Guys,
Whether LNT was pushed for high falutin reasons (stopping bomb testing) or academic greed is at the end to the day irrelevant. The only thing that counts is: is it correct? In its denial of our ability to repair radiation damage, it is horribly incorrect.
Hello Jack:
About a decade ago Jerry Cuttler wrote a paper about dogs. The bottom line is that when dogs are exposed to low level radiation throughout their lives they live significantly longer than a control group of similar dogs that are not exposed to radiation. ie Low level radiation is health beneficial.
I'm trying to summarize the arguments pro and con on LNT for our Fear of Radiation article. I included a figure from Bob Hargraves' book, Electrifying our World, showing USA counties with higher radon levels have lower lung cancer rates. Two radon "experts" are pushing back, but their strong opinions are not backed by data. When the discussion is finished, I will summarize it our our Debate Guide page.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Fear_of_radiation#LNT_and_radon,_Controversy_over_Figure_4
David,
That's a really dumb way to go after LNT. It's easy to come up with all sorts of explanations for those two charts. But if you look at populations that have received really large doses, both acutely and evenly over long periods, there is no way that LNT can replicate both the harm we see in the former case and the lack of detectable harm in the latter. It's because LNT denies our ability to repair DNA damage. Comparing one set of mild dose rates with another gets you no where.
Jack, I agree with you completely that LNT is bunk, but we need to engage the public in this discussion. Journalists and other opinion leaders need to hear the facts and both sides of any remaining issues. If the best we can find is an unsourced statement from self-proclaimed radon "expert", we will publish it under the heading "Read it on the Internet". Then it is up to people like yourself, with verifiable facts, to debunk the nonsense.
On the issue of LNT and radon, it seems like the facts are compelling. Yet we have Mr. Koch arguing that the apparent hormesis is due to a negative correlation of radon levels with smoking prevalence. He has even shown maps of the USA where there is an apparent negative correlation. Counties with high radon levels just happen to be those with low smoking.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2081763568746983/posts/3204596069797055/?comment_id=3522675324655793&reply_comment_id=3528269884096337
I have not read Cohen's paper, but I trust the legend on the scatterplot, which clearly states that the data is only for counties where the percentage of people who have ever smoked is 58-60%. That eliminates smoking as a factor. You or someone else who knows the research should make this point. I will then summarize each side of the debate for our Debate Guide page.
The number of people who are willing to reconsider their opposition to nuclear power is growing. It hasn't yet reached the mainstream media, but we are close.
"The 5-10 mGy group (less than 0.2 mGy/y occupational), --- a tiny fraction of background --- saw a 6% jump in cancer, relative to the control group."
But both groups received even more damage from radiological examinations, which, with high dose rates, are an important cause of cancer.
Daniel,
Yes, dose rate is very important, but what really counts is the dose within the repair period which is roughly half a day. If a 0.4 mSv mammogram is truly dangerous, then we have all sorts of much bigger problems.
A mammogram means 2 + 2 mGy. There's no point in using mSv.
Doryphores bore me. OK, mGy.'s if you want.
Your dose number is 10 times the American Cancer Society figure.
Maybe you dropped a decimal point?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21797809/
Gray is a measure of energy deposition in human flesh (actually any material, but this is the one we care about the most). mSv is a measure of the biological effect of the energy deposition. For gamma and X-rays (what you are talking here), they are equivalent units. Use either one you prefer, the conversion is easy. (100 rad equals a gray and 100 Rems equals a Sievert)
To use the mSv, you must take a measurement. What measurements of a biological effect have been conducted? What biological effect? A lethal effect? A carcinogenic effect? Can one die from the destruction of breast cells in the same way as one dies from the destruction of bone marrow cells? What is being sought to determine is the carcinogenic effect. The input unit is the mGy, and the goal is to establish the dose-response curve. Using the mSv reflects a misunderstanding of a dose-response curve.
> In most journals this would have disqualified them from publication.
Null results should be published if the study is well done. They add to human knowledge.
Gary,
Correct. I should have been more specific. My bad.
Sadly this is just one of many recent examples of this type of ideological p hacking garbage in academic publishing. Roger Pielke Jr also has a few other examples on “controversial” topics recently and there are many other examples that confirm this is a trend. Unfortunately this garbage laundering calls the entire academic publication system into question and that is a shame.
Most of these studies are conducted with the end result in mind. They
> simply work the data until they find a niche of success in declaring
> LNT to be the preferred method. None of these is very near
> scientific. Also, they do not even try to isolate other possible
> cancer-causing environmental stressors (sometimes smoking). The
> bottom line is that any study that works from the preferred conclusion
> to an explanation is not a scientifically- valid study.